Joined: Feb. 2006
|Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 15 2015,21:34)|
1. Similarities does not support evolution. It does prove they look similar.
Similarities has nothing to do with evolution, because it does not prove they came from a the same biological descendant. Because they look similar means they look similar, it does not mean they evolved from simpler life forms.
The morphological similarities combined with the physical /temporal distribution of the fossils create a distinct phylogenetic tree. This same phylogenetic tree also emerges from the genetic record of extant animals. Taken together they're conclusive evidence for macroevolution over deep time.
|2. The very fossil evidence that you claim as an evidence in support of evolution in fact defies lending a support. palentologists say that not a single fossil supports the evolution of a single species. Only three prominent sequences. (!) whale (2) horse (3) elephant are said to have been verified through fossils. But each of these sequences have been seriously questioned in literature. |
What a crock. We've got sequences for the sirenians, and for the giraffidae, and felidae, and canidae, and dozens of other well known families. Your credibility is zero.
|The fossils DO NOT SHOW a nearly continous gradation of change over long span of years. but fully developed organisms appear in the fossils entirely discrete and unique with minimal links.|
(facepalm) what would a half-developed animal look like?
|No explanations to the mechanism behind the morphological changes that are needed to convert a land trotting mammal to a LIVING SUBMARINE-LIKE WHALE. |
Of course we know of the evolutionary mechanisms and have even mapped most of the major genetic changes. Where are you getting this nonsense?
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD